2015 (12) TMI 1261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1.1 The brief facts of the case are as under: 1.2 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Kraft Paper and Duplex Board quoted/ unquoted, the final products, falling under chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The factory of the appellant was visited by the Central Preventive Officers of Customs and Central Excise Meerut-I on 11.09.2008. During the course of physical verification of stock of finished goods and cenvatable raw materials, it was detected that with regard to quoted Duplex board, there is excess stock of 1046 bundles/ reels, weighing 61.988 MT and with regard to Kraft paper and cenvatab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....towards imposition redemption fine and confirmation of duty demand was upheld, but the amount of penalty imposed under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and the penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004was reduced to Rs. 75,000/-. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate Sh. Sahil Mullick appearing for the appellant submits that no proper weighment of goods has been conducted by the Department while investigating the matter and no weighment slips have been provided to the appellant. He further submits that goods have not been clandestinely removed from the factory since the same are available in the factory itself. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ound stock of finished goods i.e. quoted Duplex boards were laying in the factory at the time of visit of the Preventive Officers. It is also not the case of the Department that the shortage quantity of goods has been removed from the factory clandestinely, in view of the fact that neither in the SCN nor in the orders passed by the lower authorities, there is any mention to that effect. Hence in absence of any tangible evidence that the goods have been removed clandestinely by the appellant, I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Advocate that non-maintenance of proper records by the factory supervisor of the appellant has resulted in shortage/ excess in the stock of the goods. However considering the fact that the appellant has not mainta....